Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruption marketing


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as advertising. This isn't an encyclopaedia article. It doesn't even pretend to be one. It speaks in the first person and exhorts the reader in the second. This is gone on sight. Uncle G (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption marketing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unreferenced original essay, as far as I can tell. The concept does get some Google Books hits, but they don't seem to be significant coverage of the topic itself. Regardless, what we have here is practically unsalvageable, as the argument at hand seems to be that all marketing is disruptive (note how it includes TV ads, telemarketing, magazine advertising, outdoor advertising such as billboards, online advertising, etc.), eventually flat-out saying "stop advertising". In the end, this is just a tirade against all forms of advertising and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unreferenced WP:Original research --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS This article doesn't make sense to a neutral reader. The author's definition of disruption marketing might not be the same to you or me. --Artene50 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Could easily have been deleted per WP:G1 or WP:G3. I would not do so, but I have seen articles Speedy deleted for less. No citations, none available, none conceivable. I used to believe all marketing was disruptive until I read this article (mostly joking). Anarchangel (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research essay. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Shock advertising. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.